I am not sure whether having each time to think of a categorisation
would not cause enough trouble to discourage people from sending useful
posts that may be difficult to categorise. And, on the other hand,
have to include a number of controversial but time-honoured categories
of the kind : "New Version New Bugs", It's not a bug it's a feature,
you twit", "Yet Another Stroke of Genius!!!", "A counter-example to
Fermat's Theorem!" and so on...
And what about this one?
Andrzej Kozlowski
Chiba, Japan
http://www.akikoz.net/~andrzej/http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~akoz/
On 5 Nov 2004, at 16:17, Paul Abbott wrote:
> [I will be commenting on this in a post shortly - moderator]
>
> Hi all, and especially Steve Christensen:
>
> At the recent Wolfram Technology Conference in Champaign, Luc Barthelet
> <lucb at ea.com>, a regular user of MathGroup suggested that it would be
> good if all postings to MathGroup included a categorisation in their
> header, e.g.
>
> Newbies, Graphics, Functions, Programming, Statistics, Teaching,
> Integration, Numerics, Symbolic Algebra, Special Functions, ...
>
> so a Subject line might take the form
>
> [Statistics]: How to fit to an elliptical function?
>
> (not sure if the [ ] are required or useful). In this way, sorting by
> Subject would be easier. Of course, it's not always easy to do such a
> categorisation, and they may change with time (as a problem stated as a
> Numerics might end up being solved using Symbolic Algebra).
> Nevertheless, I think such a change would be very useful. It should
> also
> help when doing searches on MathGroup archives.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> --
> Paul Abbott Phone: +61 8 6488 2734
> School of Physics, M013 Fax: +61 8 6488 1014
> The University of Western Australia (CRICOS Provider No 00126G)
> 35 Stirling Highway
> Crawley WA 6009 mailto:paul at physics.uwa.edu.au
> AUSTRALIA http://physics.uwa.edu.au/~paul
>
>